The following editorial appeared in the Orange County Register on Aug. 26:

The Obama administration broke the law. So concluded a report released last week by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that reviewed the highly controversial exchange in May of five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

In 2009, then-PFC Bergdahl somehow fell into the hands of the Taliban, the only U.S. solider to be held captive in Afghanistan. A 2010 Pentagon investigation found the evidence “incontrovertible” that the infantryman purposely walked away from his platoon.

Despite the circumstances of Pfc. Bergdahl’s captivity, the Obama administration decided that his freedom was worth purchasing by turning out of Guantanamo the five extremely dangerous Taliban militants and flying them to Qatar, where they are free to roam that country as they please.

The GAO concluded that the administration violated several provisions of the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriation Act, which Obama signed into law in December.

The Obama Pentagon failed to “notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” as required under section 8111 of the law.

It also failed to make a determination, under section 1035(a), that the individuals released from Guantanamo were “no longer a threat to the national security of the United States.”

The issue here is not so much whether Sgt. Bergdahl should have been exchanged for five dangerous Taliban leaders. It’s whether Obama was right to suspend the rule of law.

We come down on the side of those who argue that the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” trumps the understandable desire to rescue American personnel — be it Sgt. Bergdahl or a bona fide hero captured under less-questionable circumstances.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

John Boehner? I'm sure there's plenty of conservative politicians who would be willing to do it. If their goal is to get Obama out of the White House before 2017, this isn't the way to do it. Experts suggest it would be at least two years before the case would ever reach a court.

My point is that these types of presidential 'decisions' are not new nor or they unique. President Obama will never face any charges because of previous presidents actions in which serious violations of Congress have occurred without any consequences incurred for those actions.

Furthermore, Obama's "violations" pales in comparison to a past "beloved" Republican president's fragrant violation dealing with these same acts of Congress.

I agree that the President should have complied with the statute, but I wonder, but do not know, whether it was possible. I do know that Congressional leaders like John McCain were notified regarding the possibility of the exact swap that occurred more than 30 days prior to it taking place. I do not know why Congressional committees were not also notified.

However, it is obvious that had the young man been a hero or a soldier who had not left his post, there would be no hue and cry regarding any failure to follow the procedures outlined in the statute. In fact, if we failed to get back a soldier who had not been derelict in his duty the President would be roundly condemned. So, perhaps before we face another situation like this, Congress should re-visit the statute and decide whether it is practical to require 30 days notice in all circumstances. I think it is rather obvious that exceptions should be allowed when the situation warrants greater speed or flexibility. That does not mean that the President was correct here.